Just Not Feeling the Advantages of Steel

Hi all,

I figure I will be rocking the boat with this post. People frequently bring up how nice the flexibility and vibration damping ability of steel is, yet I haven't really experienced it with the steel bikes I've ridden. I had a 1999 Trek 800 Sport with a rigid fork and it always seemed quite harsh on the trails to me. After owning an aluminum xc hardtail, I went to an On One 456 Evo II. I couldn't tell any difference from the aluminum xc hardtail or the old Trek. I get that neither is an especially nice steel frame, but based on these two experiences it seems like the ride quality of steel is overhyped to me. Anybody else feel the same way? For those who appreciate steel more, what are some steel frames that might show me the ride quality of steel?

If we are only discussing vibration damping on a modern MTB, IMHO, there is no noticeable difference in frame material. In a world were anything smaller than a 2.25 tire is considered "old school", and big tubeless tires are ran at very low PSI's, I don't see how someone could "feel" a difference in vibration damping between different frame materials. If the discussion was about road or CX bikes (rigid with high pressure tires) frame material can make a big difference in "feel".

On the other hand, frame material can make a big difference in frame stiffness and pedaling efficiency.

Don't know what to tell you, you may just have the sensitivity of a rock Me personally, I feel a HUGE difference between my alu HT and my steel rigid, not even close. Both are setup with B+ rear, the alu even has a bit bigger tyre and when I land a drop, hit rough stuff on that, I can feel it, on the steel frame it's smooth. Granted, the construction of those 2 frames is much different, the steel frame has very thin stays designed for just that reason, the alu HT has box stays designed to be stiff and precise, but I've ridden quite a few other alu frames and I can definitely feel the difference over my steel one.

Just FYI, no clue on your Trek 800, but I've ridden a Trek 8000 and it was definitely one of the smoothest alu HT frames I've ridden, so Trek definitely knows what they're doing in terms of design using alu. I would like to get ahold of that bike again now to compare it to my steel bike, see if I could feel the difference and to see if it is a solid ride in the tech, or a flexy noodle to offer the ride it does - my steel bike is very stable in the tech, it's a '08 Monkey.

One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

Any frame material can be made into a frame that will ride any way through tube shaping and butting, tube wall thickness and diameter, and to a degree tube shaping and other manipulation. There are flexy aluminum frames and stiff steel ones. Your Trek 800 is pretty low end and is probably overbuilt for durability and to control cost so it's going to have a stiff ride. Most low cost frames of any material are overbuilt to last and not break (liability). Higher end frames can be more nuanced and mission-targeted but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll offer a compliant ride. For example, an expensive touring bike will still ride stiffly because it is designed to carry a load and be stable. But a more expensive bike tuned and designed to offer a complaint ride can be made of any material if the designer/builder know what they're doing.

I've had several steel, aluminum, carbon, and titanium frames that feel between those two.

The frame design has more to do with the feel than the material. Your bodyweight is a big factor too. Most bikes have to be built strong enough to reliably carry people over 200 pounds. It doesn't matter what the bike is made out of, it's going to feel stiff if it's designed for a 200 pound rider and you weigh closer to 100 pounds.

My first mtb was a 1991 Trek 820 which was a rigid steel bike. That was when suspension forks were in their infancy. Back then I couldn't have told you what type of ride it had because I had nothing to compare it to. I bought a Scott/Clark Kent UniShock fork for it and rode it for about a year then the frame broke at the seat stay. Trek warrantied it but let me upgrade to a 8000 frame. As LyNx mentioned earlier Trek knew what they were doing back then with their tubes. It was a bonded, lugged not welded frame and it rode sweet. I rode it for about 10 years then I thought I would see what all the talk is about with the "Steel is real" and bought a closeout re-branded KHS True Temper OX Platinum Plus frame. It had a down tube that was tear drop in shape. It was the harshest riding bike that I have ever owned.

Fast forward a few bikes and I was finally able to get the bike of my dreams, albeit a much newer version and a 29er, a Breezer Lightning. Breezer Lightnings were legendary back in the day. They were a work of art and supposedly had a magic ride. I took all the parts (I had upgraded everything but the seatpost) off my aluminum Breezer Storm to build up the Lightning Team 29. The frames have almost identical geomentry except Lightning has 5mm shorter chain stays. The very first ride I could tell the difference. Wow this is what a premium steel bike is supposed to feel like! It has just the right amount of compliance to make the ride magical. Everyone who has ridden it has been impressed with it. As Joe Breeze says, " Let the tubing be the star of the show." and that is true with steel and aluminum. Here is an interview with him and he tells it much better than I could ever.

I have two steel-framed road bikes that feel quite different. My 1987 Bianchi has an SLX frame. It is not very forgiving, and a wee bit twitchy, but is quite efficient. I also have a modern custom steel frame that is very plush and comfortable, but I am marginally slower on it than the old Bianchi.

As for mountain bikes, I just got my first steel frame, and I am hoping it will be an improvement over my Al-framed bike (aluminum has an official IUPAC/periodic table two-letter abbreviation; no need to invent new ones).

I have an Al-framed full-suspension mountain bike (2008 Trek Fuel EX7). I think the shock absorbers are there primarily to compensate for the harshness of the Al frame.

My first MTB was a 32# cro-mo 1990 RockHopper Sport. I liked it a lot.
When I had some $$$ I splurged for a high end StumpJumper M2 (Metal Matrix composite aluminum). It was a nice, super-responsive bike, but it was harsh. I rode it 'til it broke, but I also went through an M4 (also metal matrix composite, but you can't call the new version "M2" again - hence the senseless "M4" designation - maybe that stands for Mo' betta Manipulated Metal Matrix...) with a 100mm RockShox Duke SL. Also a nice, responsive bike. Less harsh with the fork.
Then I finally bought a Niner MCR9 (Reynolds 850-something steel tubing) - Magic Carpet Ride. It was awesome and had that super feel that aluminum lacks, but eventually I was riding it beyond its intended XC purposes (check out the newer Niner SIR9s and you'll see that they have updated the geometry - I would consider trying another one, except that the MCR cracked at the rear dropout and Niner would not warranty it, so I am a little sour on them).
The next steel bike was a Canfield Nimble 9. I had finally found my perfect bike. It was only a hair stiffer than the MCR, but the geometry was much better suited for steeps, rock crawling, and the tiny jumps that I go off of. Unfortunately, that bike broke in half. It was warranteed by Canfield, but the newer design was much beefier and I lost that nice steel feel. The bike is quite sturdy/responsive/efficient, but has little flex. The latest N9 is quite a bit lighter, and probably is not so harsh.
Moral of the story, some steel bikes are stiffer than others and depend on which steel and how they are designed, among other things. Plus, if I weighed 30# more, my N9 would probably feel like the old MCR.

But now you see the reason for n+1
...or at least for trying a lot of bikes.

it seems like the ride quality of steel is overhyped to me. Anybody else feel the same way? For those who appreciate steel more, what are some steel frames that might show me the ride quality of steel?

I agree. I think the many steel frames i've had have almost all been a bit more muted in the front end, but that's it. I mostly prefer steel because of its durability and fatigue life.

You'll see more variation in frame deflection between a Large and Small frame in a given model than you will across frames or materials... so it's mostly BS. With custom that's out the window if you're a very large/small rider. I have a custom steel hardtail for my main ride and it's the stiffest frame i've ever ridden. It beats the tar out of me if i don't stay on top of the front of the bike.

I had an XL on-one inbred that was a fkn noodle. It showed what was possible with steel, and it was not great.

"Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
Mikhail Kalashnikov

^ a pretty terrible summary of steel frames, but thanks for contributing.

So I recently weighed two bikes as a comparison for someone. Both were gravel bikes. One was a steel frame (56cm) and the other was a low end aluminum frame (54cm). Both the same model bike, from the same manufacturer, but a different frame material.

The steel bike had one level higher components, and a 1x drivetrain vs the 2x on the aluminum bike. Other than that, there were no major differences. Which one was lighter? The bike with the steel frame, by 2 lbs, even though it was a bigger frame.

No, it's not an apples to apples comparison, but cheap aluminum frames are often just as heavy as steel frames in my experience, and the components will have a much greater impact on overall weight than the frame material.

It may be just as much about design, but you can't separate material and design. The design features of a good steel frame are simply not possible with aluminum. Conversely what makes aluminium ride like crap is having to use larger diameter tubes. While you can design an alloy frame for one particular size and weight of rider, you are always a few pounds away from having a brutally harsh ride or something that rides like a wet noodle.

Personally, I can feel the difference regardless of suspension or tires. Even the cheapest shopping cart steel rides better than the finest alloy.

Aluminum frames have a harsh ride?
Titanium frames are soft and whippy?
Steel frames go soft with age, but they have a nicer ride quality?
England's Queen Elizabeth is a kingpin of the international drug trade?

All of the above statements are equally false.

There is an amazing amount of folkloric "conventional wisdom" about bicycle frames and materials that is widely disseminated, but has no basis in fact.

The reality is that you can make a good bike frame out of any of these metals, with any desired riding qualities, by selecting appropriate tubing diameters, wall thicknesses and frame geometry."

This all being said, let's not forget that absent of any front or rear shock, your most effective suspension is........YOUR TIRES. Yep, they work better than any frame design.